Haleigh- Plato Blog #1

At the moment, my opinions of Socrates’ presentation of an ideal city as an explanation for the goodness of justice are conflicted. In general respects, many of Socrates’ ideas seem reasonable, from education being a far more effective way of deterring bad behavior than laws to the harms of both wealth and poverty. Yet, the reasoning behind why these are good is what is lacking. There can be no definitive proof for one pedagogical philosophy being better than another, as there is valid justification on either side. One can argue both that a violent protagonist is bad as it will lead a child to act violently themselves and that a violent protagonist can be good as it allows children to tackle the concepts of good/evil and the complexity of human behavior in a safe, controlled environment. In other words, while there may be a solid argumentative foundation underlying what Socrates says, it in no way means that it is a universal truth.

However, the second level of this application seems more justified to me. Socrates splits the city into three groups, which personify the three main virtues he has identified within the city- the guardians are wise, the soldiers are courageous, and all citizens practice moderation. These in unity present a conception of justice, based on this being the state in which each person knows their place and takes actions towards which they are suited. He then brings this concept to a more personal level, by claiming that this also serves as a tripartite representation of the human soul. In this model, there exists a desiring part, a rational part, and a spirited part; a person is acting with justice when these parts exist in unity, with no one section overriding another, and each staying in its place. Though obviously intending to justify the exact regulations of the city he has designed, I believe this concept could prove the inherent nature of morality in the human mind no matter one’s beliefs (unless based on a hedonistic philosophy). For the most part, conceptions of morality believe in moderation in one’s desires, and the importance of one’s own spirit. Thus, no matter the exact format in which one designs these groups, it seems generally acceptable to present these urges as ones that most exist in a state of cooperation, in which each must stick to its role, so to speak. As disunity would lead to excess in one of the three areas, maintaining this unity and balance is the differentiation between morality and immorality, no matter how one defines the areas. I then become dissatisfied with Socrates’ argument again when he extrapolates this to mean that acting morally is natural. Just because one believes that three types of emotion must maintain a balance, it does not mean that these three states are actual designated areas of the brain/soul. Even though Socrates lacked the neuro-scientific advancement to prove what the parts of the brain meant, it is still logically unsound to presume that just because he believed one model of human behavior to be ideal it was actually innate and natural to act that way. As humans are animals, it would be more logical to assume that the natural way for humans to behave would be to follow their urges and instincts, and that morality is something we design and developed on our own. I look forward to seeing how Socrates continues to develop the goodness of his system of morality with the argument that this means it is actually inherently good and natural for humans.